Would you support a World Order if it were created granting the rights and duties of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights of The United States of America to everyone in the world? Would you agree to a world union of states with limited sovereign rights, like the United States today, but it is all one America? The Flag with 240 stars?

I consider the US Constitution to be the pinnacle of human accomplishment in such matters. Nonetheless, certain things seem clear to me. Our Constitution is in practice an historical curiosity. It has no God-given right to exist, nor any more absolute authority than Leviticus, Dianetics, or the Rules of Golf. In practice, its every limitation on government power, and every protection of the individual from government has long ago been abrogated, edited, and exegisized on the streets and in the courts, and covered with a ton of paper from the Supreme Court down. The Drug War folks turned it into a hemp-linen rag used to shine their badges and boots.

It's like that ad on ebay: It's had two new heads, and three new handles, but it's still George Washington's axe.

Global politics is the simple, self-evident, and inescapable fact of the 21st Century, no matter how much we agree that the Founders were right back in 1776. Every inch of Terra has been mapped, and the Internet puts all of us in the world in instant communication. This fact makes One World Government INEVITABLE, because it is now possible. The only question is how much influence the US has, and how that world shall be run.

US Constitutional freedom granted personally to all would instantly produce local bully rule most everywhere in the world, as libertarian Bill Of Rights freedom depends on people voluntarily respecting each others' rights, which calls for a level of social sophistication shared by only a few these days, even in this country.

The democratic approach to the efforts for world order certainly recognizes that, which leaves two choices: ONE, Empire, police-state rule by force of arms, high-tech security, and wealth, probably as Orwell declared, by a manipulated constant war among managed "enemy" populations; TWO, some kind of vote-empowered cooperative in which no single nation's Der Leader is King. And, yes, that is more "socialist" than pure authority wielding the sword of law in freedom's name. Democracy is precisely a basically socialist concept.

You bet, I would very much support a world effort to create a single authoritative democratic world body based upon the Constitution and BOR. Local laws and customs would vary as their "states rights" entitled or required them to live by, but the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship would be Global.

James Nathan Post

---

POSTPUBCO // // THE ANTI-CYCLOPS PAPERS